The National Academies, in conjunction with the National Math and Science Initiative, will hold a day long convocation today called Rising Above The Gathering Storm Two Years Later: Accelerating Progress Toward A Brighter Future. Discussions will include what has happened since the 2005 report was release at the federal, state, and private sector levels and, of course, what still needs to happen. Competitiveness overall, K-12, higher education, and research are all panel and breakout topics throughout the convocation. Frequent readers will remember that the Gathering Storm report, released in October 2005, was a report requested by Sens. Alexander (R-TN) and Bingaman (D-NM) and Reps. Boehlert (R-NY) and Gordon (D-TN) that listed the top 10 actions Congress should undertake to secure Americas competitiveness. The report was a catalyst for news, legislation, and further reports that we have reported on regularly over the last couple of years.
The convocation has spurred a grasstops effort, led by The Science Coalition, to bring the issue of research funding back to the forefront just as Congress begins to consider both a supplemental and the FY09 appropriations bills. The Coalition is encouraging university and association leaders to contact their Congressional members with letters emphasizing the call for increased funding of basic research contained in the Gathering Storm report and to contact local media on the ongoing competitiveness issue.
Additional coverage of the convocation can be found at The Chronicle of Higher Education News Blog.
Two Nobel Prize winners have an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal (sub. reqd) today regarding the need to make science a top priority of the next Administration. David Baltimore and Ahmed Zewail write that the next President needs to have an Office of Science and a science advisor at the White House in order to protect Americas competitive future. The piece makes a strong case for the necessity of strong leadership on science and science funding and is worth a read if you have access to the Wall Street Journal.
The section that best sums up the argument of the op-ed and the community as a whole plays on the fact that the three major candidates for President turned down an opportunity to have a debate focused on science issues is:
Apparently the top contenders for our nation’s highest elective office have better things to do than explain to the public their views on securing America’s future.
Protecting that future starts with understanding that much of the wealth in this country comes from scientific research and technological innovation. Translating science into commerce has opened up vast new fields of endeavor and has raised the standard of living in America. The country that is on the cutting edge of developing new technology is the country best positioned to benefit from that new technology.
We’re starting to hear from folks on the Hill that it’s looking more like science funding might be included in the initial supplemental when it comes out of the Senate. What’s less clear is how much, though the consensus seems to be “likely less than the science and technology community hopes it will be.” It’s also not clear what the House might do with its version of the supplemental or what would happen if, as the President has repeatedly said, it gets vetoed for including domestic spending.
Another rumor buzzing around DC that the supplemental might actually get split into two bills: an Iraq-only funding bill and an Afghanistan and domestic spending bill. This is politically expedient for the Democrats as the issue of Iraq funding splits the party. By having a separate bill to fund the war in Afghanistan and some domestic programs, it allows the Democrats to vote against funding Iraq without withdrawal timetables but for Afghanistan and domestic program spending that they do support.
We’ll know a lot more in the next week or two as the House and Senate appropriations committees begin their hearings and markups on the supplemental bills. Meanwhile, the science advocacy community continues to be very active in trying to make the case for science funding in the supplemental. Last week’s grassroots effort (which included CRA’s Computing Research Advocacy Network’s involvement) appears to have generated a lot of phone calls to Members of Congress about the issue, and the various coalitions continue to weigh in with their corporate membership to make the case.
It’s expected that the various supplemental bills will hit the House and Senate floors in late April or early May, so keep it tuned here for details.
From the CCC Blog
- MIT’s Subra Suresh reportedly to be nominated as new Director of NSF Ran Libeskind-Hadas
- Eric Brewer wins ACM – Infosys Foundation Award Ed Lazowska
- Chuck Thacker wins Turing Award Ed Lazowska
- FOCUS identifies “The Best Jobs in America� Ed Lazowska